Giresi v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., A--150
| Decision Date | 10 March 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. A--150,A--150 |
| Citation | 71 A.2d 725,7 N.J.Super. 41 |
| Parties | GIRESI v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & Co., Inc. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
John W. O'Brien, Plainfield, argued the cause for appellant (O'Brien, Brett & O'Brien, Plainfield, attorneys).
Edward J. Abromson, Newark, argued the cause for respondent.
Before Judges COLIE, EASTWOOD and JAYNE.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Did the competent and credible evidence in this action adequately sustain the determination of facts and consequent judgment of the Hudson County Court concluding that the permanent disability of the plaintiff resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment? The Deputy Director of the Division of Workmen's Compensation and the Hudson County Court both resolved that controversial issue in favor of the plaintiff.
If their conclusions rest upon competent evidence, they ought not to be overthrown incautiously. Mason v. Evans, 5 N.J.Super. 338, 69 A.2d 33, (App.Div. 1949).
For some period of time prior to the alleged accident on November 20, 1947, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to operate a slurring machine in the teflon department at its Arlington plant. The machine may be generally described as a container into which the proportions of powder and water are imported and then agitated. It is imperative to close the aperture in the receptacle after the admission of the materials by the insertion of a rubber stopper weighing about one-half pound and to maintain it in its position during the churning period. It was pragmatical and expedient to seat the stopper firmly to prevent its dislodgment or ejectment by the operation of the apparatus.
It was on November 20, 1947, in the pursuit of this occupation that the plaintiff, in her endeavor securely to install the stopper by means of the exertion of pressure with her right arm and shoulder, sensed an acute and painful 'click' or 'crack' in the area of her right shoulder and neck. Proof of the occurrence of the alleged mishap is reinforced by the testimony of the shop foreman who recalls that the plaintiff at once informed him of her anguish and that he forthwith issued to her a 'pass' entitling her to treatment at the company hospital. Additional confirmation is available in the testimony of the attending nurse and in the contemporaneous records of the infirmary.
The plaintiff's injury is classified as a subluxation of the right sternoclavicular articulation. Dr. Visconti testified that the subluxation 'is an accidental condition' and 'would not come on with the ordinary occupational hazard.' The X-rays did not reveal any bone disease in the region of the right sternoclavicular articulation.
The appellant more vigorously impugns the finding that a causal relationship between the alleged accident and the injury has been evidentially established. We recognize that the proof of that essential element of the plaintiff's case is somewhat frail, but from a comprehensive survey of all of the circumstances disclosed by the evidence and the permissible inferences drawn therefrom, we are of the opinion that there is competent evidence upon which the judgment for the plaintiff can be based.
The following excerpts from the testimony of the witness Mary Starzecky are Noteworthy:
'Did you see * * * the front part of the collarbone?'
'Yes, I seen it right after that happened; when she got hurt.'
'And you saw her today also?'
'Did you see her before November 1947?'
'Oh, yes * * *.'
'And did she have that before that time?'
'No * * *.'
An abnormality was observed at the hospital and catalogued as a 'swelling.'
The examination of the plaintiff by the appellant's physician revealed ' a definite forward displacement of the medial end of the right clavicle.' The testimony of Mary Starzecky generates the inference that the protrusion was discernible 'right after' the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jensen v. Wilhelms Const. Co.
...in a workmen's compensation case by two independent tribunals and based upon sufficient evidence, Giresi v. E. I. duPont deNemours & Co., Inc., 7 N.J.Super. 41, 71 A.2d 725 (App.Div.1950); Coronato v. Public Service Coordinated Transport,4 N.J.Super. 1, 66 A.2d 196 (App.Div. 1949), we will ......
-
Fox v. City of Plainfield, A--470
...factual determination, we will not overthrow such finding when supported by sufficient evidence. Giresi v. E. I. duPont deNemours Co., Inc., 7 N.J.Super. 41, 71 A.2d 725 (App.Div.1950); Coronato v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, 4 N.J.Super. 1, 66 A.2d 196 The legal result is of cour......
-
Snoden v. Borough of Watchung
...and the County Court. There is no reason or need to make new and independent findings of fact. Giresi v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 7 N.J.Super. 41, 71 A.2d 725 (App.Div.1950); Gagliano v. Botany Worsted Mills, Inc., 13 N.J.Super. 1, 80 A.2d 125 (App.Div.1951). Petitioner amply ca......
-
Ginter v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Corp., Lamp Division
...3:81--13 (Cf. Rules 1:2--20 and 4:2--6) to review the facts and make independent findings thereon. Giresi v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 7 N.J.Super. 41, 71 A.2d 725 (App.Div.1950); Coronato v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, 4 N.J.Super. 1, 66 A.2d 196 (App.Div.1949); Ali v......